There is a great deal of current thought regarding the aspects “user experience.” Central to the design and research of Switch Critters is the premise that users are creators of their own meaning. Embodying interactions that are evocative and open-ended, Switch Critters focus not on getting a job done or communicating a specific meaning, but leave space for the user to create richer and more personal meanings.

In “Aesthetic Interaction — a Pragmatist’s Aesthetics of Interactive Systems,” Petersen, et al use John Dewey’s Pragmatist framework to address interaction design:

What makes Pragmatists Aesthetics a particularly well-suited perspective on designing interactive systems is that the legitimacy of the experience of the system is not confined to be in line with the intentions of the designer of the system but emerges from the personal and interpersonal sensations, experiences and reflections that is connected to the system in context. It does not regard man and world as separate things but focuses on the integration and interrelations bound to context. Designing for aesthetic experiences invites people to actively participate in creating sense and meaning.

Aesthetic Interaction is not about conveying meaning and direction through uniform models; it is about triggering imagination, it is thought-provoking and encourages people to think differently about the encountered interactive systems, what they do and how they might be used differently to serve differentiated goals.

In the design of the Switch Critters, the translation from data to behavior is not explicit — there is no print out of actual pollution levels or energy use. Rather the changes in form, actions — “mood” — of the object are left open to the user to interpret and act on. This creates much more freedom and enjoyment than a system that is built on the model of an alarm, a scientific instrument, or a meter.

A group of designers in the group Non-Object are thinking along similar lines. From the Non-Object Book website: “Why has “functionality” been defined in such a historically narrow way? What is beauty? Nonobject is an attempt to free the imagination by disengaging it from the constraints of utility, economy and technology.” Likewise, Switch Critters attempt to address a broader spectrum of functionality than current interface models embody — including the macro lens of long-term sustainability and the micro of personal thought and creativity.

In another recent call for more evocatively designed objects to shake up the status quo of task-based interaction, Jonathan Chapman writes in his book Emotionally Durable Design:

Interestingly, it often takes the introduction of a radical concept — or simply the introduction of an unfamiliar way to undertake familiar tasks — for users to actually stand back and recognize the sheer banality of the objects with which they have been mindlessly interacting up to that point… This is why it is so crucial that users are presented with a variety of objects, with each approaching a similar task in a different and wholly unique way — some rational and task focused, others bizarre and richly experiential, and so on. (p 14)

Chapman’s larger argument for evocative objects is that we will bond with them, integrate them into our lives, and be reluctant to part as a newer, “cooler” item comes onto the market. Longer attachments lead to less waste. With Switch Critters, although a second line of environmental argument is of course positive, the reality is that light switches are not replaced that often anyway. What is more interesting in this case is that the object itself can have a valuable social component comparable to how a living being or a piece of art can affect our lives. The depth of Switch Critters’ knowledge, their quirkiness, and their fluctuating moods can shake us out of “mindless use,” provoke thought and promote personal growth.

Although there isn’t much precedent for objects with autonomous behaviors, a guess would be that there would be a curve to the human–object relationship: more intrigue and personal awareness and growth at the start of the relationship, and then a learned tolerance, new habitual modes, and perhaps an emotional attachment that grows with time.